Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southeast Asia
    Posts
    240
    Reputation
    1536

    The Fundamental Questions

    As some of you know, I am a postgraduate student doing anthropology. To those who don't know what that is, in simple terms, it is the study of humanity. Cultures, tribalism, psychology, dichotomy, etc. The lot.

    One thing that I cannot help but observe every single time is that in every civilization that has existed or had existed or still exist...it is dominated and even defined by gynocentrism or some form of it like feminism. Note that I said ALL. Yes, ALL. I cannot find any society of any sort in my studies so far be it a hunter-gatherer nomadic tribe or a ancient agrarian civilization that defies the rule. Just none. If people can find one, please tell me.

    So that leads to two fundamental questions which I think must be answered or researched or reflected upon if we were to ever fully understand humanity.

    1) To what degree is the minds of the human female feminist or gynocentric ? Are they just predisposed to be that way ? Is it their innate nature ? If so, approximately how much of it ?

    2) How easily is the mind of a human male influenced or controlled or dictated by another human female or gynocentric thoughts ?

    Because as far as I have seen, all society up to this point is gynocentric. In almost all societies men hold all the power with regards to administration, governance, politics, military. In all societies women hold the power over men.

    So I think we should ask those 2 questions if we were to effectively break out of this trend of gynocentrism, submission towards gynocentric ideas and be more honest and critical about gynocentric thoughts and ideas.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Grenade001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    342
    Reputation
    827

    Re: The Fundamental Questions

    Simple supply and demand between the sexes. In 90% of countries today there are more men than women in the under 35 bracket. We all know that it takes less effort for a woman to have sex compared to men. Youth, beauty and fertility are all interconnected and that interconnectedness is highly valued and women would ration that out to the highest bidder, in a similar vain to billionaire men marrying supermodels.

    Life is nothing but a series of trades, you want to get the most out of what you put in naturally. Like how when Governments interfere in the marketplace do distortions occur, the same thing happens with the Sexual Market Place. By being a woman who is young, in shape and without tattoos or deformities in places like Australia/U.S. and Canada puts you in the top 20% almost automatically. Globally speaking, there is a relative abundance of such women and in most of Eastern Europe, Asia, South America, etc. their expectations are quite lower so being a Western Man earning $50,000/year puts you in the top 5-10% globally. In a place like Thailand where the average wage is $50/week, you look like a millionaire dropping $50 on a night out, thereby raising your status far above that of the local men, which creates another distortion in itself.

    More or less, what I am trying to say is that Western men are the prize and that fact is often hidden for reasons that Western women want to keep their value artificially high in order to secure a higher (AV) value man. Globally, a Western man would garner more interest than a Western woman and that is indisputable, a man can earn more money but a woman can't get more beautiful with age. If enough men discovered their AV, then the value of Western Women would slump massively. Granted Western Men aren't perfect beings and there is much one can do to improve, but overall the marketplace is in our favour and with the increased connectivity of the world, this glaring difference will be difficult to hide as time goes on.

    Tl;dr

    A man can get more status/fitter/wealthier/make a higher salary with age, but women can not get more beautiful or fertile with age.

    The lack of connectivity in the world in years gone by allowed women to keep their value artificially high. With cheap flights to Asia under $1,000, Western men will be able to get a more broader picture of their Actual Value (AV) than their ancestors could dream of.

  3. #3
    Senior Member BeijaFlor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Chesapeake Bay, USA
    Posts
    4,145
    Reputation
    13169
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: The Fundamental Questions

    I'd like to suggest that gynocentrism may be driven by species survival.

    In all of the "higher animals" I know - bony fishes, reptiles, birds and mammals - when it comes to sex, you've got those who pitch and those who catch; that is to say, the egg-layers and the sperm-spewers. Eggs are "expensive," in terms of biological resources; sperm are far less expensive. (For example, the average hen weighs about 2500 grams, and her average egg weighs about 50 grams - 2% of her body weight. I have no idea how much semen the average rooster ejaculates - maybe a gram a shot, if that much?) Eggs, then, are "precious;" by extension, egg-layers are relatively "precious" as well.

    Fishes and amphibians, to my understanding, lay their eggs "somewhere safe" and swim away. Lizards, I believe, lay them in nests, and some female lizards stand guard and defend their nests. Birds, being warm-blooded, have to keep their eggs warm; the male, at least, can share this duty. In mammals, though, the female bears live young, nurses them with milk from her "mammae," and raises them to a size where they can fend for themselves.

    Let's move up close to home, to the great apes (including that strange hairless ape that watches me shave from inside the bathroom mirror.) Orangutans are loners, for the most part; chimpanzees and bonobos live in packs (multiple males, multiple females, and their young); gorillas live in harems (one "alpha" male, several females, and their young). All of them have relatively-helpless infants that require a lot of care and who take years to grow to adulthood. Then, of course, we've got Desmond Morris' "Naked Ape" (look in the mirror).

    May I assert that the female, as the young-bearer, as the infant-feeder, bears an importance to the life-cycle that could justify a certain level of "gynocentrism," in the family, in the clan, in the social behavior of the great apes? I don't say this to defend gynocentrism, merely to offer it as an explanation; because my next step is to ask you, Darth Sin, how many of the cultures you've studied have shown a norm where the woman stays close to the home and the children, while the men take on the riskier and longer-distance jobs of providing for the family?

  4. #4
    Member Big Boss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Outer Heaven
    Posts
    40
    Reputation
    106

    Re: The Fundamental Questions

    Biology is our curse. Women have one thing men want that furthers the species. Historically, men got to work and toil for a family, much like today. But at least it was a pay off and they didn't get shit for it. These days you don't have that. Materialism is through the roof as well as over expectation. Never fear though, men are working on sex bots and artificial wombs as we speak. We can free ourselves from the modern woman forever.


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 32
    Last Post: November 18, 2014, 8:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •